> Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/11/05, Deborah Harrell wrote:
<snippage>
(It appears that the following was incorrectly
attributed to Dan; I actually wrote this paragraph.)
> >If torture were used on "people who have a real
> > chance of providing a lead" in a genuine "ticking
> > bomb" circumstance, by those who _know_ both
quoted
> > conditions are true, it would meet my 'practical
> > idealism' requirements. I also factor in 'what
> would
> > *I* be willing to do' in that situation -- is the
> > potential payoff (in terms of saving lives) worth
> >the stain on my soul (or spirit, or heart, for the
> List's
> > Unsouled ;} )? I am reasonably sure that I am
> > capable of killing or even torture if I was
certain
> > (1)that lives would be saved (2)the targeted
person
> > was not an innocent (to the best of my knowledge)
> > (3)the conditions in quotes above exist. I am
quite
> > sure that I'd vomit to the point of bleeding dry
> > heaves afterward, and have nightmares for a very
> >long time, if not the rest of my life.
> and she replied
(Just continuing the thoughts, actually -)
> The season finale of "24" addressed just exactly
that
> > scenario (nuclear device stolen by terrorists, one
> >of whom "Jack" has his hands on -- and tortures).
> The interesting thing about *24* is that torture was
> used in several
> instances for the reasons Dan believes it could be
> justified but really did
> not give accurate information. There are many
> problems with torture and once
> you justify it for one case you will find it used
> for a great many....
While that last instance in that episode does meet my
personal criteria (which I'd guess would be met only
in tiny fraction of a percent in the real world: less
than 0.01%?) -- nevertheless, I also wrote in that
post:
"I don't think that torture can be official gov't
policy for reasons you [Dan] listed -- that slope is
just too bloody slippery..."
I'm fairly certain that both of us remarked in other
posts that a very practical reason to avoid torture is
for future US troops' or civilians' sakes. Sending
individuals off to other countries where they will be
tortured is also verboten, then, in my book.
Similarly, I don't think that the government should
decide whose plug is pulled - that should be a matter
for the patient, family and clinicians (there is the
occassional need for a legal guardian, as in orphans
or if somebody is known not to have the
on-life-support person's best interests in mind ). I
don't want the gov't to decide who has sex with whom,
as long as only consenting adults are concerned.
Some decisions are so personal that they ought not be
legislated -- the flip side is that making such
choices
should be a grave matter for those involved,
approached reverentially and with a great deal of
soul-searching.
Debbi
What Would Buffy Do? Maru
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
